→Zeq and old RFAR admin discretionary ban: new section |
Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The (talk | contribs) →Zeq and old RFAR admin discretionary ban: Zeq should not be held to a discretionary ban made a long time ago. |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
In early June 2006, you, as [[WP:AE]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=57183626&oldid=57131810 action], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#Zeq article bans]] banned Zeq from a number of articles. Part of your commentary at the time was that you thought it would be good to get one POV pusher out of the way and see if there was still a problem. We now know there have been plenty of ongoing problems, culminating most recently in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]]. Should those original bans still stand? Zeq has made the argument that they only lasted for one year, in which case they would have expired. But I can't see a one year rule - or any time limit - in the RFAR case and your ban. (Some other bans under the case have been time limited.) There is a currently open report at WP:AE. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
In early June 2006, you, as [[WP:AE]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&diff=57183626&oldid=57131810 action], [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#Zeq article bans]] banned Zeq from a number of articles. Part of your commentary at the time was that you thought it would be good to get one POV pusher out of the way and see if there was still a problem. We now know there have been plenty of ongoing problems, culminating most recently in [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]]. Should those original bans still stand? Zeq has made the argument that they only lasted for one year, in which case they would have expired. But I can't see a one year rule - or any time limit - in the RFAR case and your ban. (Some other bans under the case have been time limited.) There is a currently open report at WP:AE. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
||
: Zeq should not be held to a discretionary ban made a long time ago. Even the arbitration committee only makes bans, traditionally, for a maximum of one year. I'm sorry that my statements lacked clarity. I don't recall any intention of banning him indefinitely and don't see what good such a ban would do. --[[User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The|Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The]] 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:31, 4 March 2008
Zeq and old RFAR admin discretionary ban
In early June 2006, you, as WP:AE action, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive43#Zeq article bans banned Zeq from a number of articles. Part of your commentary at the time was that you thought it would be good to get one POV pusher out of the way and see if there was still a problem. We now know there have been plenty of ongoing problems, culminating most recently in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Should those original bans still stand? Zeq has made the argument that they only lasted for one year, in which case they would have expired. But I can't see a one year rule - or any time limit - in the RFAR case and your ban. (Some other bans under the case have been time limited.) There is a currently open report at WP:AE. GRBerry 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Zeq should not be held to a discretionary ban made a long time ago. Even the arbitration committee only makes bans, traditionally, for a maximum of one year. I'm sorry that my statements lacked clarity. I don't recall any intention of banning him indefinitely and don't see what good such a ban would do. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)